Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rBrvW-00007EC; Mon, 28 Nov 94 00:18 EET
Message-Id: <m0rBrvW-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5470; Mon, 28 Nov 94 00:18:48 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5466; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:18:47 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7039; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 23:15:34 +0100
Date:         Sun, 27 Nov 1994 17:21:05 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: lo + opaque
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1763
Lines: 45

And:
> I support the "xehe" that pc proposes, but I think it would be useful
> to have a complementary camvo, "xoho", say, that marks a sumti as
> a NON-leaper. It would be an overt way of showing that we have not
> inadvertently forgotten to insert a "xehe" or to use an initial
> "da poi ... zohu".

Surely xo'o should be xe'enai. But wait a minute, don't use xe'e for
this new proposal, it is not the xe'e I proposed, so it should have
another name, at least to keep the confusion at a manageable level.
Let's say xa'a, if I may suggest one.

> As far as I am aware, there are no other proposals still floating around
> for opacity solutions, so comment can focus on "lohe", "xehe" [a la pc],
> and "xoho".

Let's see if I understand correctly:


        "I need a box"

pc:     mi nitcu le nu lo tanxe cu co'e         (opaque)
        mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)
        mi nitcu le nu xa'a lo tanxe cu co'e    (transparent)
        mi nitcu tu'a xa'a lo tanxe             (transparent)
        mi nitcu lo tanxe  [tu'a xa'a cancel each other] (transparent)

And:    mi nitcu le si'o lo tanxe cu co'e       (opaque)
        mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)
        mi nitcu le si'o xo'o lo tanxe cu co'e  (opaque)
        mi nitcu tu'a xo'o lo tanxe             (opaque)
        mi nitcu le si'o xa'a lo tanxe cu co'e  (transparent)
        mi nitcu tu'a xa'a lo tanxe             (transparent)

Jorge:  mi nitcu lo'e tanxe                     (opaque)
        mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe                  (opaque)
        mi nitcu le du'u lo tanxe cu co'e       (opaque)
        mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe                  (opaque)
        mi nitcu lo tanxe                       (transparent)


Is that a fair rendition?


Jorge